Bigfoot Timeline 1990-2020

[SWWASAS]

 

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

 

I could be wrong...  @BobbyO says that reports take a few years to get posted on the BFRO site, I don't know.

I believe that a few years or never in some cases is more accurate.  Because of my experience I would not even call what BFRO has a data base.  

[Huntster]

^^^^^  Interesting that post got a down vote despite being accurate. The BFRO database is a critical database, but it by no means is scientifically based, complete, or can make any claims of accuracy. It is just one of the best available.

 

Even the FBI crime statistics are faulty, and are condemned on a regular basis, and that database is compiled as completely as possible, well funded, and participated in with near complete law enforcement agency participation nation wide. 

 

Until government begins compiling a database under similar terms as all its other databases, we're stuck with private efforts, which are private. The owners build them, maintain them, provide access to them, etc under their own terms.

[JKH]

On 6/1/2020 at 2:29 PM, gigantor said:

Unfortunately, I think BF is on a path to extinction.

 

Some researchers I follow think their numbers are actually increasing in some regions. What you observe in the data is likely the effect of the rise of social media, decentralizing reporting. Likewise, IMO the '10s have been increasingly about independent folks gathering boatloads of information about BFs, DIY style.

Edited June 3, 2020 by JKH

[gigantor]

59 minutes ago, JKH said:

Some researchers I follow think their numbers are actually increasing in some regions

 

I wonder what they're basing that on.

[Twist]

I’d guess due to certain researchers close to the subject with the most current data have gone silent and that includes interacting with public databases and forums.    Results in less “public” reporting.  At least in regards to published info/reports.  
 

As to why they would be growing in population, probably just better identification of habits and habitat that get researchers closer to the being itself, or signs of the being.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Twist

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, JKH said:

Some researchers I follow think their numbers are actually increasing in some regions.........

 

As one who believes that sasquatches are on the road to extinction, and have been for at least the past 500 years, I also believe that their numbers might be increasing in some regions. For example, I am fully convinced that their numbers have decreased dramatically over the past 175 years in what was likely their best habitat (northwest California, western Oregon, and western Washington), but have been more stable or maybe even grown in British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon, and Ontario.

[MIB]

I don't think it is possible to deduce anything based on report numbers.    There are simply too many moving parts.    Social media has fostered the formation of MANY small, local groups and individuals so you don't have to go to the big names that publish reports anymore to talk to someone and you don't have to face the interrogation that was characteristic of BFRO when I made my report.   It is more socially acceptable now, too, to talk about bigfoot so there are likely fewer people who report just to have a sanity check.    Moreover ... go to BFRO's site and look at the recently published reports list, look at the dates.    Now, think about that chart previously shown.    It simply takes some amount of time for reports to be investigated and published, so the recent gap may show nothing about reports, only about investigation and publication.    We have to wait 10 years to see what has been published about now to know about the number of reports now.   

 

May not be what you want to hear, but it is truth.    Deal with truth or deal with wishful thinking.   It's up to you.

 

MIB

[JKH]

1 hour ago, gigantor said:

 

I wonder what they're basing that on.

 

From what I've heard, reports and tracks of juveniles.

[Huntster]

58 minutes ago, MIB said:

 ... go to BFRO's site and look at the recently published reports list, look at the dates.    Now, think about that chart previously shown.    It simply takes some amount of time for reports to be investigated and published, so the recent gap may show nothing about reports, only about investigation and publication......

 

Seems to me that many of those date differences are due to recent reporting of encounters that occurred many years ago, not a lag in investigation and publication, although that is also clearly a regular publication fact. It seems rare that a report is published less than a year after the event. That's understandable. 

 

I'm also pretty sure that some events/encounters simply don't get published because they might be ongoing.

Edited June 3, 2020 by Huntster

[Franco]

Interesting Topic...... Got my head a thinking.......

 

Maybe it isnt a decline in population... Maybe they have had enough of all the ding bats, newbies trampling through the forest banging on trees, howling... they move out of the area to more a secluded area. Just to avoid us. With all the cameras on every phone, seems to me like there are alot more Pictures and video of them coming out. 

 

And I am so glad "Finding Nothing' [I mean Bigfoot] was cancelled, the best and only part I liked was the Town Hall meeting, hearing people tell there stories.

 

 

 

 

[SWWASAS]

When I look at the BFRO reports in the  Washington county in which my research area was located (this morning),  I see only two reports after my two submitted BFRO reports 10 years ago.   The data base has one  in 2003 and one in 2018.    Neither of my reports are in the published data base.     My first was a  footprint find and the second was the encounter I have related on the forum.     When I made the BFRO reports,   I assumed that the BFRO actually had a data base and I wanted to contribute to that.   If my reports were discarded or not investigated then it is likely many others have had the same fate.      Because of lack of investigation on the part of the BFRO for my first two reports, I never made another.    Excuses are usually that there is a backlog or no investigators in this area.  10 years is a hell of a backlog.    If there are no investigators,   anoint some.   Then again since membership seems to be bought by attending expeditions,   maybe there is no one in the county that has paid enough.     Because of that I would not base any estimate of BF population or activity on BFRO data.  

[JKH]

Naturally, any database will not be a complete picture of contact or population. As we know, they only show the encounters which are reported to the organizations, which may be a small fraction of actual contacts, and which are not representative of numbers of individual animals.

[MIB]

On 6/2/2020 at 6:16 PM, Huntster said:

Seems to me that many of those date differences are due to recent reporting of encounters that occurred many years ago, not a lag in investigation and publication

 

I'd agree with that.    A detailed analysis of the dates of filing vs date of event would be telling.     There may be no change in actual contacts, only a change in knowledge of how and where to report brought about by TV shows and social media.   A constant stream of "encounters" might show up on a graph of activity over time as low prior to knowledge of where to report, a substantial spike or bulge in the graph as the backlog of old events that were not previously reported got reported, then a reduction to some roughly steady value, though higher than the original was, as a greater percentage of that same steady "event rate" gets reported over time because people know where / how to report.     In a way, with a real species, that's what you should expect .. the report numbers changing should reflect changes in our behavior, not necessarily changes in the bigfoots' behaviors.    We've said "search for bigfoot, find yourself" .. this may just be another aspect of the mirror.

 

MIB 

[Huntster]

What an excellent observation and post!

 

28 minutes ago, MIB said:

.......There may be no change in actual contacts, only a change in knowledge of how and where to report brought about by TV shows and social media.   A constant stream of "encounters" might show up on a graph of activity over time as low prior to knowledge of where to report, a substantial spike or bulge in the graph as the backlog of old events that were not previously reported got reported, then a reduction to some roughly steady value, though higher than the original was, as a greater percentage of that same steady "event rate" gets reported over time because people know where / how to report.     In a way, with a real species, that's what you should expect .. the report numbers changing should reflect changes in our behavior, not necessarily changes in the bigfoots' behaviors.........

 

This is exactly what ADFG discovered when they conducted a well funded study into "urban bears" in the Anchorage bowl.

 

https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=livingwithbears.anchorageurbanbears

 

One of the remarkable discoveries with this discovery was the rate of bear reports they received from the public. With bears wearing satellite collars (so they knew where the bears were, and the time they were there), they could compare that data with the phone calls they got from the public. They would have bears in excess of 1000 lbs wandering through Anchorage neighborhoods at night and never get a call. There were occasional confrontations with people and their pets in their fenced yards, and they still didn't get calls. These giant bears would sleep during the day just yards from popular paved trails through the city's greenbelts, and the people walking their children and dogs would never know it. 

 

But when a bear decided to come out of the woods and walk the busy streets during daylight hours, their phones would light up like a Christmas tree. Everybody called.

 

Another thing I noticed with the BFRO reports is the effect a particular researcher might have on the database. Of particular note is the series of entries from the Ocean Shores neighborhood in Grays Harbor County in Washington between July 2009 and January 2015. They were all investigated by Scott Taylor. These are all incredibly fascinating, and some feature multiple witnesses. Personally, I am so impressed with them that I made the effort to visit the neighborhood on my way from Anchorage to Los Angeles a few years ago. Unfortunately, I had my wife with me, didn't have the time to stay in the area long,  and visited the actual neighborhood on New Years weekend........it was a zoo. 

 

Did the sasquatch activity there stop? My bet is no. But did Taylor move on or decide to stop entering his investigations in the published database? My bet is yes............

[JKH]

^The BFs are a lot like those bears in some places, IMO, but even better at evading.

 

Taylor is local and covers a lot of western WA. I think he's still with them, but he's also been speaking quite a bit. Recent article:

https://www.courierherald.com/news/local-sasquatch-event-to-be-live-streamed/

 

I've said this before, but I visited OS in 2013 and the local tiny newspaper had an article about the guy who had one napping in his backyard. There was enough info that I found the address and drove by to check it out. The deer are everywhere, the habitat is excellent. I'm sure Taylor and the new lady are aware of ongoing OS activity.

 

I think there's another reason reports trail off and it's just that not everybody wants to do it, for various reasons. As I noted, social media has created many forums in which to share besides the most famous ones. I'm sure Matt saw this coming, hence the timing of the tv show.

 

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by JKH